Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

The Remnant ^ | March 31, 2004 | Thomas Drolesky

[ultima ratio]

Worse Than Deja Vu All Over Again:

Vatican caves on meaningful reform of disastrous New Mass

Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220

When last we left the saga of the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope John Paul II promised Catholics worldwide that a new set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses would be drawn up and issued by the Holy See as a follow up to his Ecclesia de Eucharistica encyclical letter. This caused many well-meaning Catholics in the Novus Ordo community to jump up and down for joy, believing that the long awaited crackdown from Rome was forthcoming. Some commentators said at the time that the Pope’s encyclical letter was just the word “we needed” to have during the Easter season. Others of us said that the Holy Father’s encyclical letter made many of the same points as his 1980 Holy Thursday letter to priests, Dominicae Cenae, which promised a set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses.

Well, if a news report from Catholic World News’s website is to be believed, the forthcoming document from Rome about the liturgy is worse than deja vu all over again. The 1980 instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, did list the major abuses in the new Mass and called for them to be corrected. This gave much hope to those of us who did not then have the grace of tradition. Indeed, I waved copies of Inaestimabile Donum in the faces of offending priests for a year or two before I realized that Rome wasn’t going to enforce anything, including the reaffirmation of the ban on girl altar boys. Many of us did not realize at the time that the abuses were simply manifestations of the false presuppositions of a synthetic liturgy that sought to empty the Mass of its authentic tradition while claiming positivistically that tradition had been maintained as it was “updated.” There was no correcting the Novus Ordo then. There is no correcting it now. There will never be any correction of abuses in the Novus Ordo.

According to the CWN.com news story, the new document from Rome dealing with the liturgy will not mandate any disciplinary measures against liturgical abuses. It will merely call for an adherence to existing norms by “proper training” in the liturgy. If true, this is actually worse than Inaestimabile Donum. All of the thunder made by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in the immediate aftermath of the Pope’s encyclical last year was merely rhetoric, which yielded in the final instance to the desires of the ideological descendants of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini to keep exploding the liturgical time bombs that Michael Davies has noted with great precision were placed into the Novus Ordo as it was being created synthetically by the Consilium. Although this was entirely predictable, the fact that the new document will not represent the salvation of the Novus Ordo, which admits of so many legitimate adaptations and exceptions as to make any discussion of a liturgical “rite” an absolute oxymoron, should give traditionally minded priests who remain in the diocesan structure a wake up call. Rin Tin Tin and the Cavalry are not coming from Fort Apache.

All discussion of a “universal indult” for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass evidently has disappeared from the final text of the soon to be released liturgical document. Of course, Quo Primum is the only universal and perpetually binding indult any priest has ever needed to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. The powers that be in Rome, however, do not want to admit that on behalf of the Holy Father, who must give his approval to the new document. Thus, those traditionally minded priests who thought that they were going to get a golden parachute from the Holy See so as to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the daylight rather than in the underground have been deceived. As good sons of the Church, many of these priests wanted to wait and see, although the outcome was predictable. Now that the outcome is clear, it is time for these priests to respond to this wake up call. They will receive no help from this pope.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II is wedded to the liturgical revolution, and has been since the Second Vatican Council. He is not going to be leading the cavalry over the hill. The late Father Vincent Miceli gave me a very important insight into the mind of the Holy Father back in January of 1983. As a self-deceived Catholic conservative who held out high hopes for the pontificate of the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla when he was elevated to the Throne of Saint Peter on October 16, 1978, I was flabbergasted that the Pope had appointed the then Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin, to succeed the late John Cardinal Cody as Archbishop of Chicago. Bernardin? Chicago? That was the stuff of Father Andrew Greeley. I had written a priest-friend in Canada in 1979 at around the time Greeley began to push Bernardin for Chicago, that “this will never happen in the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Father Miceli took a few bites out of his meal at a diner in Massapequa Park, Long Island, New York, looked at me and said, “The Pope’s a liberal. Bernardin is a friend of his from the Second Vatican Council. They are fellow progressives. Don’t kid yourself.” He continued eating his meal in perfect peace. Well, although I filed Father Miceli’s wise counsel away, I didn’t want to believe it at the time. He was, of course, quite right.

To wit, I received a letter from a reader of Christ or Chaos (which is going to become an online publication by the end of February) that contained a nugget from a 1980 book, Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla, written by a fellow named Malinski and published in France:

"In 1965—when Pope John Paul II was still the Bishop of Krakow, he discussed the phenomenon referred to as inculturation with a friend, saying: 'Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.'" (page 220)

The reader, Mr. A. E. Newman, had a pithy comment or two of his own in his letter to me: “Tell me, what hope is there from a man who thinks like this–what hope for a stable liturgy, for upholding of age long traditions? What hope from a man who flies in the face of his predecessors? Now that his reign is drawing to a close I can answer that [there is] no hope! My own view is that in the eyes of history the last three popes will bear a heavy responsibility for our present shambles and [the loss] among the faithful of millions. Just at the moment when Islam is strong. We can credit him for one thing: he followed through! God will deal with him, but we [will deal] with the deformation of our Faith.”

Although the fodder for an entire series of articles, the comments of the then Archbishop of Krakow are quite instructive. They should serve as a sobering reminder to good priests and laity who believed that the Novus Ordo can be reformed that the problem rests in the new Mass itself. Not much time needs to be wasted on this as the proverbial handwriting is really on the wall. Those traditionally minded priests who have remained in the Novus Ordo structure should stop believing that their words or even their presence can counteract entirely the harm to the Faith contained within the new Mass, admitting that there are priests within the diocesan structure who are zealous for the salvation of souls and who spend themselves tirelessly for the flock entrusted to their pastoral care. They should, as painful as it may be for them to consider, simply follow the courageous examples of Father Stephen P. Zigrang and Father Lawrence Smith. They should assert their rights under Quo Primum no matter what unjust ecclesiastical consequences might befall them. Many of their sheep will follow them, and those sheep will provide for their temporal needs, as is happening at Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel in Garden Grove, California, where hundreds upon hundreds of fed-up Catholics have found their way to the Catholic underground simply by word of mouth. It is simply time to force the Novus Ordo structure, built on quicksand, to collapse of its own intellectual dishonesty and liturgical incompleteness. It is time for good priests to say goodbye to a synthetic concoction and to bravely embrace the glory of Tradition.

Each priest must make his own decision in this regard. It is, though, a grave disservice to the faithful to try to pretend that the Novus Ordo itself is not the problem and/or that the problems will get better over the course of time. They will not. The Novus Ordo remains the prisoner of its own false presuppositions and of the devolution of liturgical decision making to local level, as was envisioned in Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself on December 1, 1963.

What applies to priests applies as well to the long-suffering laity who have waited for such a long time to see the abuses that have their origin in the Novus Ordo itself come to an end. So many good people, who dearly love God and want to save their souls, have fought valiant but ever failing efforts in most instances to keep the liturgical time bombs from exploding in their own local parishes and dioceses. Some of these people have tried to equip themselves with the latest “information” from Rome about what is licit and illicit in the context of Holy Mass. What these good people need to realize, though, is that the Novus Ordo is impermanent and unstable of its very nature. The new Mass is entirely predicated upon the idiosyncratic predilections of a bishop or a priest or diocesan and/or parish liturgical committees.

The Mass of Tradition has always been beyond even the realm of a bishop to change for reasons of “inculturation” or the “genius of the peoples.” The Immemorial Mass of Tradition gives God the fitting and solemn worship that is His due, communicates clearly and unequivocally the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for human sins, and provides a permanence and stability that are reflective of the nature of God Himself and of man’s need for Him and His unchanging truths. It is time for good lay people themselves to say goodbye to the angst and confusion and anger generated by all of the problems associated with the Novus Ordo Missae.

Enough said.

Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.

[gbcdoj]

No it doesn't.

It would seem that a non-definitive pronouncement could not be infallible, by its very nature as non-definitive. This is clearly shown by the fact that such pronouncements require only religious assent (cf. LG 25) and not a definitive assent - the submission of faith.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*) (Lumen Gentium §25)

[pascendi]

"What are these?"

Here's a good one:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface 8 in the Bull Unam Sanctam.

This one does wonders for what passes for ecumenism in our age.

But it demands absolute assent from every Catholic. It's infallible because it clearly pronounces, defines, or declares something to be the case. All infallible statements contain this wording. Even the declaration of Vatican I contained it:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Note that it doesn't have to be declared within an ecumenical council. The pope can speak infallibly by his lonesome if he wishes, outside a council.

The documents of Vatican II contain no such wording. If someone assumes it does, produce it. Show that the wording is expressed within infallible form.

The documents of Vatican II contain many restatements of known doctrine; where it does so, requires the assent of the faithful. But this is nothing new.

[pascendi]

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*) (Lumen Gentium §25)

Note the bold: first, it has to be authentic. =) It has to be absolutely consistant with the Deposit of Faith.

Secondly, see the word "definitions"? That would be the declare, define, profess stuff. Vatican II doesn't have any of that stuff.

Dogmatic definitions are something very specific.

[gbcdoj]

Note the bold: first, it has to be authentic. =) It has to be absolutely consistant with the Deposit of Faith.

I don't believe that's the proper understanding of "authentically" in that passage. It would seem to mean teaching by their authority as bishops:

For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. (Lumen Gentium §25)

Obviously some doctrine definitively taught by the entire episcopate would be consistent with the deposit of faith, for that is exactly what the infallibility granted to them guarantees! Otherwise this infallibility would be ridiculous: "they are infallible unless they are wrong".

Secondly, see the word "definitions"? That would be the declare, define, profess stuff. Dogmatic definitions are something very specific.

No, the "declare, define, profess" isn't necessary for a definition. This is clearly taught by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis:

22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. (§22)

In this case, he refers to the following text:

7. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church. (Dei Filius Ch. 2)

This is a definition which lacks the standard "declare/define/profess/teaches" formula, but is definitive by virtue of the intent to settle any further discussion on the issue, as is explained in LG 25:

And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*)

All that is necessary is that the teaching is clearly intended to be the "last word" on the issue.

Vatican II doesn't have any of that stuff.

As I have pointed out, the passage in Lumen Gentium §21 settles the issue of the sacramentality of episcopal ordination, which was still a disputed issue before the Council. The formula "the Sacred Council teaches", combined with the intent to "declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops" and Paul VI's intention that the Third Session settle the issue with "a certainty which may not be called into doubt" clearly makes this a definition. This is made more evident by the use of "teaches", which has been used in solemn definitions by other councils:

It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession; and that He would come sometime, all the sacred rites of the Old Testament, sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies disclosed. (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino)

Dei Verbum §9, which settles the question of whether Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture are from one or two sources, is probably a definition, as "following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on" (§1).

[gbcdoj]

I don't see what's so hard about assenting to that dogma. He's quoting St. Thomas' Contra Errores Graecorum on the necessity of belonging to the one true Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church, for salvation.

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. (Bl. Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)

[pascendi]

"I don't believe that's [acting in absolute consistency with the Deposit of Faith] the proper understanding of "authentically" in that passage. It would seem to mean teaching by their authority as bishops..."

Same thing. They can't teach anything other than what is consistant with the Deposit of Faith. Ordination does not endow them with the ability to channel the Holy Ghost, so to speak.

"No, the "declare, define, profess" isn't necessary for a definition."

Sure they are, in that the statements must clearly express the intent to bind what follows. The clear intent to declare and define must be present in a manifest way in order for the statement which follows to qualify as an infallible statement. The quote you provide from Humani Generis does not provide any evidence to the contrary.

"This is a definition which lacks the standard "declare/define/profess/teaches" formula, but is definitive by virtue of the intent to settle any further discussion on the issue..."

What you are saying is that by the very fact that an act or statement was put forth by a church authority, that very fact makes that act or statement definitive in the same sense as a dogmatic definition. That doesn't follow.

[pascendi]

But to apply in practical terms: what, all told, did Vatican II define?

You claim one item above, according to your understanding of definitive. For the sake of argument, using your definition, is there anything else? What is the sum and substance of it?

What, altogether, are the things that the faithful are to believe after having read each and every one of the documents of Vatican II? If you were to ask them "what do you know now, what to you understand now", what should everyone be saying?

[gbcdoj]

What you are saying is that by the very fact that an act or statement was put forth by a church authority, that very fact makes that act or statement definitive in the same sense as a dogmatic definition. That doesn't follow.

No, what I am saying is that as long as a council "directly and conclusively pronounces its sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Sacred Council" it is infallible.

You claim one item above, according to your understanding of definitive. For the sake of argument, using your definition, is there anything else? What is the sum and substance of it?

I would tentatively propose Dei Verbum §9-10 concerning whether Tradition and Scripture are one or two sources, the teaching of Lumen Gentium §22 on collegiality and the teaching of Lumen Gentium §25 on the extent of the infallibility of the Church: "[The Church's infallibility] ... extends as far as is necessary for religiously guarding and faithfully expounding the deposit of divine Revelation.". I am not sure whether these could be said to be manifestly infallible (cf. Can. 749 §3), though. I think these parts of LG could also be argued as definitions, although merely a repetition of previously defined teaching on the subject:

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. (Lumen Gentium §18)

What, altogether, are the things that the faithful are to believe after having read each and every one of the documents of Vatican II? If you were to ask them "what do you know now, what to you understand now", what should everyone be saying?

Every teaching that concerns faith or morals within the documents of the Council.

[pascendi]

"Every teaching that concerns faith or morals within the documents of the Council."

But what are they?

[ultima ratio]

Nobody denies councils and popes are sometimes given the protection of the Holy Spirit. But these protections are not for their every utterance. Infallible utterances are severely circumscribed by content and manner. That is to say, they must concern matters of faith and morals, they must be presented to the faithful unambiguously and with clarity, and must clearly intend to bind the universal Church--an intention, by the way, made explicit by Paul VI in the Nota Praevia in which he specified that only those definitions openly declared as binding the universal Church would, in fact, do so. None was so declared. Therefore nothing was binding.

The confusion on this thread arises when discussion surrounds matters already previously settled by the Church and declared to be infallible doctrines--such as the citation you give about the governance of the Church by bishops and the pope. Such teachings would not qualify as definitions of any sort, since they had already been defined prior to Vatican II. Other doctrinal declarations--those which were, in fact, original--were never openly declared binding. Given this, what definitions may be said to have been actually made by Vatican II? The answer can only be--none whatsoever. There was not a single instance in which the Council openly declared its intention to bind the universal Church.

But there is a negative proof of this as well. For one thing, a great many of the most original and important declarations of the Council are shot-through with metaphoric language and subject to ambiguous interpretations. Such declarations cannot of their nature bind the intellect with certainty. Secondly, there has arisen after Vatican II a cottage industry of theologians who both deny and affirm that some teaching or other declared by Vatican II is infallible or not--or somewhere in between. This in itself proves that the original declarations were unclear and subject to misinterpretation and confusion. Such assertions are obviously uncertain and therefore fallible.

This is why those who defend the argument that Vatican II was a dogmatic council, cannot point to a single definition that was declared binding on the universal Church. Instead they talk about "religious assent"--which is the assent given to fallible doctrines. But such doctrines requiring "religious assent" do not bind in the way a truly infallible definition binds. For a Catholic to deny such "religious assent," for instance, would not make him a heretic, whereas denial of a dogmatic truth that is binding, certainly would. All of which boils down to this: however much someone may affirm Vatican II, the fact remains there is not a shred of evidence the council fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is because, despite its many novelties and insights, the Council made not a single utterance of its own which was, in fact, infallible.

[ultima ratio]

I meant to ping you as well. Please note my post #190.

[ultima ratio]

One final point. When I say popes and councils are "sometimes" given Divine protection, I mean that while they potentially are always infallible, they may not ever actualize this charism. This was the case with VII.

[biblewonk]

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor (a term that includes the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."

Now how could this be? This seems to say that no one can ever change a thing about the Sacraments.

[pascendi]

The Assumption

"...by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Totally precise and completely unambiguous as to substance and intent; big anathema attached. This is an infallible statement. The documents of Vatican II do not contain anything remotely similar to this. Another one:

The Immaculate Conception:

"...by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart."

Someone needs to step forward with something from the documents of Vatican II that looks even remotely like the examples above.

[sinkspur]

Now how could this be? This seems to say that no one can ever change a thing about the Sacraments.

It's not. No Pope can bind another Pope in the area of liturgical practice, no matter how much a previous Pope says or thinks he can.

[biblewonk]

It's not. No Pope can bind another Pope in the area of liturgical practice, no matter how much a previous Pope says or thinks he can.

Is this rule codified too?

[sinkspur]

Is this rule codified too?

I don't know. But, even the Tridentine Rite was a "new rite." Liturgical practice is not a matter of faith and morals, and rubrics cannot be defined infallibly.

[biblewonk]

So the pope that thought that he could dictate litergy to other popes was wrong?

[gbcdoj]

Now how could this be? This seems to say that no one can ever change a thing about the Sacraments.

That's not what it means. It is just talking about "every pastor": that any priest whatsoever can just invent new rites. Otherwise the Council would contradict itself:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Decree "On the Sacraments in General")

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, Ch. II)

[gbcdoj]

Someone needs to step forward with something from the documents of Vatican II that looks even remotely like the examples above.

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments? (James T. O'Connor. The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I. pp 47)

Can you find "thousands and thousands" of judgments which look like your two cited dogmas?